Tuesday, December 14, 2010

HIV Porn Scare 2010 -- The Series (Supplemental): DBurris Drops New Scud On AIM: A Second Crossover Infection?? And...Why All This Is Important

Well, well, well...it seems that Derrick Burris is learning the art of propaganda pretty fast.

Darrah Ford just released at her blog what she calls an "exclusive" where she reveals through her "sources" that Derrick Burts (aka Cameron Reid, aka "Patient Zeta") has now made the claim that there was in fact a second crossover performer whom had tested positive for HIV under the same testing system AIM had used on him. Burts claims that that was NOT the performer whom he shot his last scene with, but another performer entirely, that may have ultimately infected him.

The main source for Darrah's "exclusive" seems to be an article over at the gay gossip site RadarOnline.org, where DBurts brings forth some quite explosive charges that not only is he not the only one whom is HIV+ and still was able to work in porn, but he claims that "several other" active performers, including what he calls "some well known" ones, are being hidden in the quarantine list of HIV+ performers kept by AIM...at least allegedly.

The money graphs from the RadarOnline article:


Burts, 24, who until now has only been publicly identified as ‘Patient Zeta,” held a press conference in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning and told RadarOnline.com that he’s not the only porn star whose life has changed due to possible exposure to HIV and says there are other well-know performers on a quarantine list.

"I can’t give out names or anything or anybody that was on the quarantine list. I can say that there were well-known stars who were on the quarantine list. I don't know their status. “I was told...there was another person. What Jennifer Miller [AIM director] did tell me, she said that there was another person who tested positive; It was a male performer, I do know that. And she told me it was somebody who did crossover work....meaning gay and straight porn.  That's all she would tell me.  I said I think I have an idea of who it is, I threw a name out there and she said 'no, it's not him." I was reading stuff on the porn boards and that's all she left it at."
Now, this brings up some interesting questions. What quarantine list was Derrick talking about??  The one that was used for testing all the first- and second-generation performers that may have been affected by his acts?? Or, the overall quarantine list encompassing all those who were infected with HIV (which would include not only Marc Wallace, Lara Roxx, Joey Montana, Darrin James, and all others who unfortunately were infected?

How was he able to get access to the quarantine list to begin with?? Through their medical records?? Isn't such a list supposed to be strictly confidential and not to be released to anyone other than the people infected, the production companies using it to screen out potential carriers in order to protect their other talent, and the local health authorities who are required to keep such materials per local law?? (Remember, AIM is REQUIRED to release information about a positive test for HIV to the authorities immediately upon a positive test result...that's not an voluntary option. Certainly AIM can't be that stupid to leave those records accessible to someone like Derrick Burts, can they?? Or...is his new BFF;s at AHF through the LA County board that does keep such info feeding him information to aid their ambush and vendetta against AIM and their campaign to take over the industry??

Also, there is this: remember that both here and last year's scare, no one else (at least, no one active in the straight porn industry) was found to be infected with HIV as a result of the testing. So, could it be that merely being on the quarantine list is not necessarily a sign that a performer was openly shooting straight porn?? Either AIM's testing regime is lying through its teeth and there are rogues about infecting tens of hundreds of porn performers...or Derrick's making shit up again. Considering that he still hasn't made up his mind exactly how he got infected to begin with, until I see some more hard evidence I'm still leaning towards Scenario #2.

Nevertheless, Derrick has his supporters and fans...and Darrah Ford, who happens to share her namesake's hatred for the industry, just so happens to be one of them. A piece of snippage from her rant follows:


How dare the people who attended that press conference allow this to not be reported!! You were there and none of you told the people in your own industry that there’s probably another crossover who tested HIV positive. Continue telling everyone how they can trust this diabolical establishment. But the reality is that none of you care whether these performers live or die. To many of you, there will always be a younger, prettier, less expensive version waiting right behind them to take their place. You’re all vampires sucking the life out of these people who put their lives on the line. If anyone else has been unknowingly infected because you didn’t report there was a second crossover, their blood is on your hands.

Don’t claim that Cameron must be lying. He’s naming names which means they can go after him if it’s not true. Because they haven’t yet in my opinion only means everything he’s claimed to this point is absolutely 100% true.

Now, I respect Darrah for her passion, and defend to the death her right to speak her mind on anything and everything. And HELL TO THE NO, she does not deserve death threats or threats to out her, either.

But, ma'am, do pardon me if I don't quite march in perfect step with your love fest with Cameron.

First off, for all of the exposing that he claims to be doing, he still hasn't named any names of whom the other "well known performer(s)" happen to be. And the fact that people aren't "going after him" for not exposing them simply means that they probably don't buy his story to begin with.

And secondly, Darrah....you do know that gay porn is NOT under the same rules as straight porn, right?? In straight porn, condoms are either voluntary or utilized by the performer's choice. In gay porn, condoms are generally mandatory for the large studios; but bareback porn is far more popular with the "independent" studios who play to the consumers who simply can't stomach condoms getting in the way of their fantasy. In straight porn, testing and peer pressure not to infect those you fuck combined with selective and individual choice for condom usage, combined with selective choice of partners for sex scenes predominate because the main goal is to screen out infected people from scenes to begin with.

In gay porn, on the other hand, it's simply assumed that a performer will be HIV+ at some time, since the center of gay production is in the free fire zone of the HIV/AIDS pandemic; therefore condom usage combined with segregation of infected from non-infected performers doing bareback scenes is their norm.  A few gay studios, though, have began to institute testing as a means of protecting themselves, but the default position of most is to simply ban bareback porn entirely and impose condoms exclusively. (This is the position of Chi Chi LaRue, who is so passionate about this that she loudly resigned from VIvid when they did away with their brief "condom only' policy about a year ago.)

The problem, of course, becomes more acute when male performers attempt to cross over and play both sides of the street, due to economic troubles and simply bi-lust.  Some are straights who go the "gay for pay" route; others are true bisexuals who cross over for the "twink" value and to earn more money in these recessed times. Here is where the goal of protecting the assets and talent in straight porn clashes head on with the fear of not discriminating against and scapegoating gay men...unleashing both rampant homophobia and legitimate fear.


And then add to that mix another couple of factors: (1) the desire of professional bureaucrats and health care officios and certain ceritfied "sex positive" experts to use the porn industry as an easy scapegoat and guinea pig for all their beliefs about what "safe sex" should be and how it should be "modeled" to the public as a means of safety; and (2) the exploitation of government grants and other public finances to protect and develop political turfs and machines that feed on both the cash and the fear to gain political power and wealth.

Both Mike Weinstein (for the pro-gay "safe sex" liberal side) and Shelley Lubben (for the fundamentalist Christian "born again ex-slut" side) have not only become fabulously popular for their "activism" due to the prevailing wisdom that active sex workers and porn performers are just too plain stupid or abused or "diseased" or slutty or bound by The MAN (or, if successful and happy, merely mouthpieces of THE MAN); but have also the potential to score big paydays as well. Weinstein is poised to become the main Porn Czar in taking over the testing regim not only in LA but nationwide; and Lubben is just one FOX News interview with Sarah Palin away from scoring that multi-million dollar book deal. The jury is still out, though, on whether Derrick Burts will cash in as the next new Victim of Porn.

Much less popular, and being shunted aside and dismissed in all the horror and specatle, are the existing porn performers who manage to eke out a semulance of a life in the industry, yet whose stories don't fit the lurid fantasies of abject shame and horror and disease and death and loathing. If their industry is forced underground by those who still have it their heads that shoving condoms and dental dams down the throats and up the other orfices of performers without asking them how it feels, and regardless of whether or not the public who pays their checks by buying their works would be willing to accept wrapped dicks, though, then what will the response of people like Darrah Ford be then?? They may have Kink.com or a recondomized Vivid or Femme t....but those who like , say Brazzers or Bizzare or Naughty America won't be so lucky.  Or...maybe they'll just have to go through pirating and tube sites to get the bareback they crave, or move to sites with less of a hastle, and less protection for the performers. I guess that's a small price to pay to promote safe sex and save lives...right??

That, folks, is why we must fight this and keep performer choice (with maximum protection) in the performers' hands.  And also, even with all their faults, why we have to stand with Sharon Mitchell and AIM against this high tech lynch mob aimed at them.  Sorry, Darrah, but I'lr respect Mitch over Shelley Lubben any day of the week..even if Doc Sharon only plays a doctor.  It's far more preferable to Ministeress Lubben playing a human being.

No comments:

Post a Comment